Watchmen

[Guest JMA]

WARNING: The following thread may contain spoilers. If you haven't yet read the series, I suggest you don't continue viewing this thread.

 

For better or for worse, Alan Moore's twelve-issue "Watchmen" series changed the comics medium. The series was both critically acclaimed and controversial. Alan Moore himself feels the series may have led to a decline in the comic industry. Despite that, many people (including myself) enjoy the series because of its more "adult" approach to the medium. Then there are those who feel it was dark just for the sake of being dark.

 

What does everyone think of the story? Did you love it? Hate it? Or are you indifferent to it?

[Nighthawk 0]

Funny, I'm in the middle of reading it again right now. I love it. I really know nothing about comics as an industry, I just read things cold that people tell me are good, so I'm looking at in a vacuum.

Alan Moore staggers me. I try to read everything he wrote that I can get my hands on, and while I'm not close to exhausting his catalogue, I have read quite a bit. It's the best thing he ever did, and that's saying something, cause I love the guy.

[Kardo 0]

I didn't like the shipwrecked story that was going on that paralells the main one. Didn't think the story needed an analogy to back it up since it spoke volumes on itself. I especially liked the chapter on Mars.

[Nighthawk 0]

I kinda think it did... well, it didn't need it, but I didn't find it out of place, since everything in the story has a mobius strip thing going on, parallels and repetition being a big thing. Plus all the stuff with referential significance to the story tucked in around every corner. Whether that's a good or bad thing is subjective, but it is a major presence in the book. I could see the argument that the pirate comic was too overt. I'd read pirate comics like that on their own though.

[Kaertos 0]

It's odd. Upon finishing reading it for the first time lte last year, my initial reaction was "eh". I mean, it was depressing, morbid, dark and there is maybe one character in the whole series you can understand or identify with. The story was massive and dense though, and in the meantime, I am wondering if I really disliked it or just didn't catch enough of the subtle touches the first time through.

[starvenger 0]

Well, there's only one way to find out - read it again...

[Kaertos 0]

Probably would, but I got it out of the library, so I have to wait until I see it there again.

 

On the other hand, my local library has an awesom TPB section. I managed to read The Kingdom, Squadron Supreme and Dark Knight Returns a coupld of weeks ago.

[Steviekick 0]

I loved Watchmen. It was just awesome. I do believe that it definitely warrants a few rereads, as there are many subtle things that you may not pick up on the first reading.

[tbondrage99 0]

My uncle gave me the last two issues of Watchmen about 7-10 years ago for christmas, I had heard a little about it by that point so I was happy to have them, I read them and enjoyed them but never got to read the first 10 issues until only 2 years ago when a friend got the Trade paperback, I read it all in one sitting. I think its brilliant.

[Steviekick 0]

That's the same way I read it. Usually I'll stop reading a trade around an actual issue break, but Watchmen warranted one sitting. I do think part of it was all the hype/praise I heard before I got to reading it, but it was a story worthy of killing an afternoon over.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

One of the greatest things about Watchmen was the way he used the comic medium to tell the story. I remember reading some analyses of Watchmen and was astounded at the complexity of some of it, the symettry of panels, as I understand it there is one issue where if you put the first page and last page of the issue next to each other,a dn read inwards, you would notice all the panels showing the same places and symmetry and all that.

 

It really is the Citizen Kane of comics, in the sense that while it's a good story, its not the STORY that makes it so revolutionary in its particular medium and so complex.

[Nighthawk 0]

Here's a couple annotations of Watchmen, should anyone be interested in delving fairly deep into the series. They're pretty extensive. All that symmetry and stuff is discussed.

 

One

 

Two

[tbondrage99 0]

All I know is that Watchmen was one of the best comics I ever read and when they eventually do make the movie it will more then likey be horrible, I personally think instead of a movie they should make a 12 episode mini-series for it on television, 90-120 minutes can never do Watchmen justice, but 12 episodes which are 60 minutes apeice would probally do it justice, and I still doubt even that.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I enjoyed the series a lot, but I found Dr. Manhatten to be way too bland for all the time and effort spent on him during the course of the series. I never found him to be anywhere near as interesting as Moore wanted me to.

[Sass 0]

I think Dark Horse CEO Michael Richardson put it best about Watchmen in a THC special on comics:

 

"The book was both good and bad for the industry."

 

I share the same sentiment with Richardson. The book was and still is a marvelous read and is one of the best comic book stories ever written. But it helped spawn a generation of comic book writers who feel that it is necessary to have "big bang" conqequences in each of their books rather than tell a simple comic book story that involves a super villain or two. Today, some comc book franchises have not used an actual super-villain in years and instead have offered up "real" world terrorists or faceless corporate moguls.

 

An example?

 

From Hulk #34 to #65, writer Bruce Jones has only had two Hulk major super villains show up during a run which has lasted for over 3 years now. During that time the Hulk's alter ego Bruce Banner was on the run which led for some of the most mind-numbing stories I have read which have involved Banner where he gives the reader no reason to care about what happens to him since he doesn't care about himself.

 

It's even worse with guys like Iron Man and Captain America where both guys have fought no-name crackpots and/or terrorists who meant nothing in the long run and will probably never be brought back again (hopefully).

 

Watchmen helped give the comic book industry that "serious credibility" that they seeked to have for years but unfortunately they have sacrificed escapism in comic book for "realism" with a bastardized version of escapism that involves super heroes taking on terrorist groups while having once-great supporting cast members take a back seat to talking heads and super villains being persona non grata in issues while giving would-be world dictators the spotlight who get mowed down easily in the resolution issue.

[Guest JMA]

There's a really good interview with Alan Moore at The Onion A.V. Club. You can check it out here. I'm sure many people have read it already; check it out (if you haven't already). Moore goes into detail on many things (including "Watchmen").

[Steviekick 0]

Jones' run on "Incredible Hulk" was terrible. Lots of rambling on and confusing character changes.

[SuperJerk 0]

I didn't like the shipwrecked story that was going on that paralells the main one. Didn't think the story needed an analogy to back it up since it spoke volumes on itself.

I totally agree.

[Special K 0]

I will agree that the shipwrescked story was one too many layers of allusion, but think it was probably done more as a homage to the old horror pulp comics which ALan Moore may well have read as a kid, and certainly was one of his first projects (his excellent swamp thing stuff). While Watchmen is a TERRIFIC stand-alone comic (my fave), I think some of it is about expressing sadness for the loss of the simple, light-hearted comics of yesteryear (while it itself is dark, dense, and sad.) One of the prevalent themes of Watchmen, I think, is the universal theme of the loss of innocence and the sadness and anger of the aging man.

[Kaertos 0]

You've got a point K, but there is a small flaw in the logic. While comics had become more complex by the mid 80's, it was a combination of Watchmen and Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns (and to a lesser extent his run on Daredevil) that really pushed comics down the dark, gritty and realistic road. I remember reading an interview with Moore (the one linked above, I think) where he seems a little sorry for being one of the major causes of that movement in comics. I think he says something like "The comics are still in a bad mood I got over 20 years ago".

[Special K 0]

I always thought in my mind (no real basis for belief except for his swamp thing and golden age Superman stuff) that Moore had nostalgia for Golden Age and Pulp horror comic books. As I said, no backup from interviews, just an impression I got from stuff he's written.

[Nighthawk 0]

He's said that. He says it a lot, actually. Off the top of my head, his introduction to the second Hellboy tpb is full of it.

[Kaertos 0]

Got it. I was thinking something different. However, I have to say that if he was feeling nostalgic for the Golden Age, he did a good job as mid-wife to the newer, more depressing and gritty comics we have today. Everyone is a tortured soul, even people who shouldn't be.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

I find it ironic that Moore's best work is the one in which he made a rather large error of judgment.

 

He's said himself that he NEVER intended Rorshach to be a character readers would empathize with the way most did. Instead, upon re-reading it's pretty clear that Rorshach is the tale's "hero."

[Steviekick 0]

I find it ironic that Moore's best work is the one in which he made a rather large error of judgment.

 

He's said himself that he NEVER intended Rorshach to be a character readers would empathize with the way most did. Instead, upon re-reading it's pretty clear that Rorshach is the tale's "hero."

I think that's the beauty of any great story; when the characters are so well rounded that it is easy for the reader to change their position as antagonist/protagonist.

[Guest Luke Cage]

I love Watchmen because I think it was the best form of comic book storytelling. By that I mean it may be impossible to successfully translate Watchmen to another medium.

 

I don't hold Alan Moore responsible for the influence Watchmen had on American

super hero comics. I blame the fans-turned-writers who slavishly imitated the book's style and tone. Also responsible are fans who insist that a juvenile medium grow up and "mature" with them. Either appreciate superhero fantasy for what it is (nostalgia/escapism/absurd fantasy) or move on. If people like the comic book medium there are plenty of adult themed comics out there...they just have to make the effort to evolve personally and give them a try.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

I find it ironic that Moore's best work is the one in which he made a rather large error of judgment.

 

He's said himself that he NEVER intended Rorshach to be a character readers would empathize with the way most did. Instead, upon re-reading it's pretty clear that Rorshach is the tale's "hero."

I think that's the beauty of any great story; when the characters are so well rounded that it is easy for the reader to change their position as antagonist/protagonist.

But not that a character that was intended to be a harsh undercutting of "American" values, and the "vigilante" super-hero, would instead become, by far, the beloved character of thye book.

[Guest KingofHarts]

Great story. The only thing i didn't like was the pirate sub story. Rorshach was a great tragic anti-hero. My only regret is that Batman never got to Mix it up with Ozymandius.

[Guest JMA]

Sometimes I wonder what would've happened if Veidt had sent his monster to Moscow instead of New York. Would things have turned out differently or would they be the same? Would the strike between the Super-Powers still exist or would they be united?

 

It would also be interesting to see how Rorschach would react to this idea. What does everyone think would've happened if Veidt had instead sent his monster to Russia?

[The Man in Blak 0]

Sometimes I wonder what would've happened if Veidt had sent his monster to Moscow instead of New York. Would things have turned out differently or would they be the same? Would the strike between the Super-Powers still exist or would they be united?

 

It would also be interesting to see how Rorschach would react to this idea. What does everyone think would've happened if Veidt had instead sent his monster to Russia?

Jesus tap-dancing christ , can we get some spoiler tags?